Case: Herrera Avila v. Bondi
0:25-cv-03741 | U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
Filed Date: Sept. 23, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This case is a habeas corpus petition filed by a Mexican national who lived in the United States for about twenty years before he was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and detained without bond. This is one of several lawsuits in which a federal court of appeals has addressed whether the mandatory detention (without bond) provision in 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) applies to noncitizens present in the United States.
On September 23, 2025, the petitioner, a Mexican national who entered the U.S. without inspection in 2006, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The petitioner was apprehended by an ICE officer during a traffic stop in Minneapolis in August 2025 for lacking legal documents authorizing his admission into the U.S.. After his arrest, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) detained the petitioner without bond and brought removal proceedings against him. In his petition, the petitioner argued that DHS unlawfully detained him under the mandatory detention framework of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), which mandates the detention of applicants for admission to the U.S. if an immigration officer determines that the individual is not clearly entitled to be admitted. Because the petitioner lived in the U.S. for decades before his arrest, he argued that his detention should have been governed by § 1226 of the INA, which applies to the apprehension and detention of individuals who are already present in the country and eligible for removal. Section 1226 establishes a discretionary process for removal which requires a determination that detention pending removal proceedings is appropriate, and allows the court to release the individual on bond or conditional parole. The petitioner requested that the court find his detention unlawful and order that he be released or provided with a bond hearing.
Shortly after filing his petition, on September 25, 2025, the petitioner filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO).
The court conducted a status conference hearing on October 2, 2025.
On October 21, 2026, the court granted the petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus. The court concluded that because the petitioner was arrested within the country's interior and was not currently "seeking admission" at a border, the INA’s discretionary framework must apply. Consequently, the court granted the petition, ordering the government to provide the petitioner a bond hearing within seven days, or release him. The ruling further enjoined the defendants from transferring the petitioner out of the District of Minnesota until the hearing was conducted. The court additionally denied the petitioner’s motion for a TRO as moot. The court entered final judgment for the petitioner the following day, on October 22, 2025. 2025 WL 2976539.
The defendants appealed the court’s order issuing the writ of habeas corpus and final judgment on November 7, 2025, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
On November 17, 2025, the defendants filed a motion to expedite the appeal, which the court granted on December 12, 2025.
On March 25, 2026, after briefing and oral argument, the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision granting the petition and remanded this case back to the district court for further proceedings. The majority opinion analyzed the INA’s mandatory framework, § 1225(b)(2), and found that individuals who entered illegally are "seeking admission" as long as they remain in the country without lawful status, thereby triggering mandatory detention. The court emphasized that the terms "applicant for admission" and "seeking admission" are synonymous, meaning those present without inspection are on the same legal footing as those at the border. In his dissenting opinion, Judge Ralph Erickson argued that this interpretation ignored the plain meaning of "seeking" and contradicted decades of legal tradition that distinguishes between border arrivals and long-term residents. Ultimately, the ruling expanded the government's authority to hold certain non-citizens without bond while they await removal proceedings. 2026 WL 819258.
On May 26, 2026, the petitioner petitioned for an en banc rehearing, requesting that all judges on the appellate court hear the case after the original panel of three judges made an initial decision, and also for a rehearing by panel, requesting the same panel of judges who first heard the appeal to look at the case again. Amicus briefs in support of the petition for a rehearing were filed on behalf of the petitioner by the City of Minneapolis and City of Saint Paul, Immigration Law Scholars, and Lawyers Defending America Democracy. The court denied the petition for both an en banc rehearing and a panel rehearing on June 17, 2026.
On August 13, 2026, the district court directed the parties to meet and confer and submit a letter within 14 days advising the court of any additional proceedings necessary and proposals regarding the scope of further litigation.
As of August 19, 2026, this case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Madeline Dollard (8/20/2026)
Claire Pollard (3/28/2026)
Sofia Yoder (4/10/2026)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71433388/parties/herrera-avila-v-bondi/
Anderson, Kristyn Marie
Attorney, David W.
Bayoumi, Katherine Lourdes (Minnesota)
Behr, Natalie
Bowman, Christopher W.
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71433388/herrera-avila-v-bondi/
Last updated Sept. 2, 2026, 3:25 a.m.
Docket for: Herrera Avila v. Bondi
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: Sept. 23, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Plaintiff is a Mexican national who entered the United States without inspection in 2026.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal
Department of Homeland Security
Executive Office for Immigration Review
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”)
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Habeas Corpus, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241-2253; 2254; 2255
Other Dockets:
District of Minnesota 0:25-cv-03741
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 25-03248
Special Case Type(s):
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Immigration/Border:
Case Summary of Herrera Avila v. Bondi, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/47977/ (last updated 4/10/2026).